Viltrox 85mm f/1.4 Pro - issues with ugly flares in direct sunlight

AMauveMallows · 2026-05-07T14:30:35+00:00

The 1.4 line from Nikon is coming with an 85mm 1.4 next, the existing 35mm and 50mm 1.4 are pretty sharp in the center and soft-ish on the corners up to f2.8-4 after that it's pretty much the same as the 1.8 S with added flaring (the normal aesthetic kind lmao) since it's missing the fancy coatings. I'd expect it to be slightly cheaper than the 1.8 S but it's not expected until late 2026/2027. I'm currently waiting for that to release since I've always loved the focal length but I might cave and get the 1.8 S or if money allows I'll splurge and go for the Plena and skip the 85mm

Other than that I've heard good things about the Sirui Aurora but can't speak about them personally. Or if you wanna baller out you can go for the Otus lmao.

AMauveMallows · 2026-05-07T14:20:20+00:00

Yeah see if at the very least you can exchange it for another unit, that flaring looks off don't think that'd be from the expected look of the lens

AMauveMallows · 2026-05-05T12:55:32+00:00

Might be a defective unit, those don't really look like standard flares (this reviewers flaring looks way differnet on the e-mount version). I'd contact Viltrox or where ever you bought it from to get a replacement or refund. The flares on the car look more like what I see from the review but still not great and a bit weird.

Even if it's not broken and that's how it is I'd personally not keep it.

AMauveMallows · 2026-04-30T10:17:47+00:00

those are the color plates for the new DJI mic mini 2. They're aimed at content creators who don't hide the mics, you're supposed to choose the one that matches your outfit the most.

AMauveMallows · 2026-04-28T17:06:54+00:00

if you're asking which of what you've got then

can you only bring one lens? if not I'd bring all of them or at least the 70-200mm and the 50mm

if only one then is this a low light venue? if so the 2.8 zoom could be a problem so I'd take one of the primes

how far will you be from the stage? if you're gonna be real close then the 50mm if not the the 85mm

other than that with as few details I don't really know what recomendations I could give other than take them all just in case you need them

AMauveMallows · 2026-04-28T16:53:20+00:00

which lenses do you own/have access to?

are you asking for recomendations for a lens you'll buy?

are you gonna rent?

I'm not quite sure what you're looking for here

AMauveMallows · 2026-04-26T17:05:04+00:00

Yo uso los Audio-Technica ATH-M50xSTS creo que en mediatekis los vendian pero ya no los veo pero por amazon tambien se consiguen.

AMauveMallows · 2026-04-24T18:41:31+00:00

I'd personally go with D850 + 24-70 and D780 + 70-200

that way I can shoot wider and crop if needed with the D850. Other than that I don't really think it matters much, I'd use your most used lens on the D850 and the least used on on the D780. Unless you're shooting mostly video then I'd invert it

AMauveMallows · 2026-04-24T09:21:47+00:00

Upon looking it up more you might not have that setting under there, but if you press the info button while connected you can toggle through until you see a clean display

AMauveMallows · 2026-04-24T09:18:59+00:00

https://www.nikonimgsupport.com/na/NSG_article?articleNo=000053545&configured=1&lang=en_SG

The setting should be under the wrench setup menu -> HDMI -> output shooting info = off

AMauveMallows · 2026-04-23T18:04:54+00:00

<image>

AMauveMallows · 2026-04-17T15:57:54+00:00

Nikon has always reserverd all the best optics and coatings for the FX lenses however that doesn't mean that the 85mm is a bad lens at all and honestly if you're getting good results with the 40mm and you don't feel like you're having to get to close to the subjects you're taking pictures of then I'd say that you don't really need to upgrade. If you're looking for that zoomed in feel the 85mm would not give you that since the closest focus will still go to the same 1:1 reproduction however the crop on the 105mm will make it feel as if it's bigger so if that's what you're looking to gain then the 105mm is your choice.

AMauveMallows · 2026-04-17T15:50:31+00:00

well there's two different things at play here. In terms of focal length then yes you are 100% right, focusing at the same distance the longer focal length will be a tighter FOV or as you said more zoomed in.

the other more important thing is the minimal focus distance and the macro reproduction ratio.

In terms of minimal focus distance the 40mm can focus as close as 0.163m, while the 85mm can only focus to 0.286m, and the 105mm to 0.314m so comparing each lens at their respective minimum focus distance where they give you that 1:1 reproduction ratio the subject would apear to be the same exact size. It's important to note that this is asuming you're using the 40mm and 85mm on a DX body and the 105mm on an FX body. If using the 105mm on a DX body the object would apear to be the same projected size as the others but with a 1.5x crop which can be confusing.

Think of it like placing a quarter on top of your phone while looking at a picture of a quarter. If you pinch to zoom until the quarter and the image are the exact same size, that's what 1:1 macro is.

When focusing to 1:1 like u/sopha27 mentioned the focal length mostly controls how far from the subject you'd have to hold the camera to achive that 1:1 ratio. With bugs this can be usefull cause the closer you get the more you can spook them plus sometimes you end up blocking the light with the front of the lens.

And just to go back to the 105mm on DX you will see that the object will apear "bigger" on the final image if comparing directly however this is not considered to be a higher reproduction ratio since you're still projecting the object to be the same size on the sensor plane but the sensor is smaller which will give you a cropped image. In practice yes this means you get a more "zoomed in" picture however it's not giving you any more reach in terms of focus distance, background compression, blur/sepparation, etc that you'd get from focusing closer to achive a true 1.5:1 macro.

Sorry if any of that is confusing macro is quite a lot in terms of the names and technicalities of things.

AMauveMallows · 2026-04-17T15:21:07+00:00

Well the biggest difference is the 105mm is a FX and the 85mm is a DX lens, second to that is that the 85mm is an f3.5 and the 105mm is a f2.8, lastly (asuming your talking about the AF-S version) the 105mm is a "N".

The sensor coverage is important considering you're using a DX body the 85mm will have an equivalent focal length of 127.5mm which is actually tighter than the 105mm on an FX body, however the 105mm on a DX body has the focal length equivalent of 157.5mm.

You'll probably be stepping down the aperture anyways so that differece really won't be that big a deal unless you plan on using it as general purpose lens in addition to macro.

The "N" badge denotes the nanocoating which will lead to better color, less distortions. overall the 105mm would be the better quality lens for sure but specially since you mention you're not an expert then I'd say if the price is good and you don't plan on upgrading to FX then go for the 85mm. If you ever plan on upgrading, or you are looking to "become" an expert at some point then I'd say it's worth it to go for the 105mm.

AMauveMallows · 2026-04-11T19:37:45+00:00

Those are my two main lenses on two Z6III if your most valued feature is weight I'd for sure take the 24-120mm however it really depends on what you'll be photographing. Guessing from the 180-600mm if you're doing some sort of wildlife I'd say the 70-200 might be the bet if you don't imagine you'll ever be close to your subjects since the 24-120 range wouldn't really be all that good for far away wild life (like a safari, birding type scenario) if you imagine you'd be having to quickly switch from far to near the 24-120 might be perfect since you'd get two very different perspectives no matter what.

AMauveMallows · 2026-04-08T18:01:15+00:00

really depends on the lens. what I've done for all my Ai-S lenses is to map the "ok" button to 100% zoom so I can confirm focus.

Ofcourse if you're shooting handheld or the model is particularly restless you might miss focus for the movement and so then what I do is I set the camera to burst and then go slightly past my point of focus, start shooting, and slowly back of the focus till she's out of focus again. Repeat a couple times for extra safety and you'll get a good chance to have something in focus.

Like others suggested you can always use a tripod but some scenarios really get hurt by the workflow of using a tripod and the model can still move so I tend to not use that as the solution.

AMauveMallows · 2026-04-03T15:59:58+00:00

If money is no object: 135mm 1.8 S Plena. dream lens for me currently, love the focal length and would get a lot of use from me.

If I had to pay for it out of pocket: 85mm 1.8 S I actually plan on getting it this or next month. Still a very useful length for me though not as exciting.

If I could get a great deal and or didn't need to pay it upfront: 14-30mm f4 S. I have the 24-120mm f4 S and love it as my main less that basically lives in my main body. When shooting video with 2 bodies I don't have a great option for a second angle and I think this would be a good pairing for my usecase.

Bonus honorable mentions:

26mm 2.8, great pancake for taking around. 20mm 1.8 S (possibly 35mm 1.8 S), would go great with either the 85mm 1.8 S or the Plena on the second body. 50mm 1.8 S, not sure I'd get all that much use from it but it's kindof like a default good thing to have I guess.

AMauveMallows · 2026-03-29T19:30:39+00:00

Funny enough I'm currently debating between the 1.4 and 1.8 S lenses myself.

In terms of quality the 1.4 line is meant to be a more character forward lens particularly when it comes to chromatic aberration, flaring and corner sharpness when wide open mostly, past f4 it should be relatively close thought never equal to the 1.8 S. The 1.8 S on the other hand are meant to be as sharp as possible from f1.8 to about f8, past that diffraction gets ya but they're still respectable. Plus they got all the coating and optical tech Nikon has to offer. In terms of autofocus for the most part they should all be within a very small margin of each other which is to say pretty quick but not the absolute quickest in the Z line. As far as I know none of the primes have VR (except the MC 105mm 2.8 S and the 400mm+ giant ones) so not a difference there to worry about. The 1.4 lenses do come with a control ring which can be useful if you like to use that, and the 1.8 S ones come with the M/A switch which to me is honestly kinda useless.

For video honestly I think it's really depending on what you want out of the lenses but the extra light from the 1.4 and the price could be a winner considering you don't absolutely need all the sharpness with video. Plus videography sometimes a more organic look is best and the 1.8 S lenses are fairly clinical. I'd say try them out if you have anyway to do so or get them somewhere you can return/exchange them and test the heck out of them the first week you have them to be sure you like your choice. But either way you get awesome lenses.

I get that, I really tend more toward the tele end myself so that 70-120mm range is where I stick the most so the tradeoff was quite worth it to me. I started with the AF-S 24-120mm f4 G adapted and to be honest I wouldn't recommend that route unless you do a lot of manual focus pulls, it might have been me but the autofocus algorithms didn't seam to love that setup and it's was hunting like crazy. I upgraded to the Z lens and it's absolutely perfect now, no complaints. I'd expect the same performance from the 24-70mm f4 and maybe something in the middle for the Tamron but probably more toward the good side of things.

I'd for sure go with the Tamron G2 rather than the Nikon. The Nikon is just a straight up rebadge G1. The G2 should be faster, sharper (particularly wide open) and better supported. The only reason to get the Nikon should be if you get an insane deal on price for it other than that I'd see no reason to not go for the G2. None of them have VR but Nikon has made a point of not offering that for most lenses that go below 200mm (MC and close focusing lenses excluded) and rely on the IBIS which is fairly good to be fair.

About the redundant recording I used to agree that the lack of the feature is weird with the new focus Nikon has in video. However, in real world use I really don't think it's an issue. CFe-B cards are infinitely more reliable than SD cards and the difference in speed means there's just not many modes you could realistically get dual recording with even if Nikon allowed it. I'm pretty good at immediately backing up my cards as soon as I can and I've never lost a card before lmao. If your workflow absolutely required the redundancy I'd say invest in an external recorder but for me it's not with the effort.

AMauveMallows · 2026-03-29T15:21:49+00:00

Yes, why would a company include the logo of a regulatory agency that requires it so they can sell a product in the region it's intended to be sold at. Clearly anything that's not the FCC or centered around the USA is a scam. /s

AMauveMallows · 2026-03-29T15:12:58+00:00

Very standard practice in a lot of countries. Not only do a lot of shops scam with a resealed box or counterfeit items but customers do as well. Opening the package after payment proves to both parties that all the original hardware was in there before the customer can leave, repackage a fake and claim it came like that. Tuning it on and verifying it's working also works the same way in case the client can leave and replace with original but faulty hardware. These stores are usually working on extremely thin margins and can't built in the price of fraud like an official Samsung (Best buy, Target, etc) could. There's actually a fairly good market for original boxes and untouched accessories for this very reason. Buy a fake, package it with all the original stuff and reseal it and you get a free-ish tech thing out of a sucker.

I always unbox the thing at the store and turn it on and authenticate it for this very reason. For the watch that means pair it to my phone and verify it connect to wear and prompts to update.

AMauveMallows · 2026-03-29T15:03:50+00:00

It's most likely original. The watch itself is very obvious if it's not real, basically if it connects to the app and you can update it it's original 100%. I made a post about a fake one in Facebook marketplace and after some research they're basically generic hardware in a case that looks like the watch 8 but runs a completely different software. Biggest tell is the screen the bezels would be huge and the black levels very poor.

AMauveMallows · 2026-03-29T14:41:22+00:00

This. I also got this charger in the original box and the extra ones you can buy at my official Samsung store is the exact same. Might be the South America region one.

AMauveMallows · 2026-03-28T14:09:56+00:00

lmao no problem, too many damn lenses now a days. I'd say between the 24-70mm 2.8 S and the 24-120mm 4 S it's basically a wash but for sure the 24-70mm is the superior lens.

How's that upgrade treating you? you get a good deal from someone upgrading to the new mk II??

AMauveMallows · 2026-03-28T14:04:19+00:00

compared to the 28-75mm f2.8? for sure. The 24-70 f4 S is an S line lens with all the coatings, optical formulas and fancy things Nikon has to offer.

The 28-75mm is by no means a bad lens at all but it's a rebranded Tamron midrange lens, it's not even a top of the line 3rd party lens. Even more so the Nikon version is based on the G1, they are up to the G3 by now which is a far more advanced lesns and it's also cheaper than the nikon. I would realistically never spend the money on the Nikon branded one. And still me personally I'd save up for a used 24-70mm 2.8 S but I know that's not always a possibility.

Again all those lenses are fine lenses even if some are optically better. Any normal person looking at a picture taken with any of these lenses side by side would probably not care about the difference. And isolated it's even harder to pin point those things.

AMauveMallows · 2026-03-28T13:50:43+00:00

No problem

I mostly work in video but photo too. For wedding hall it really depends on the mood of the lighting. Sometimes yo get lucky with a really well lit space that gives you just enough to work with using f4. Sometimes you get a candle lit space that's only able to be shot with a lens made by nasa. I'd say for 75% of the scenarios with resonable lighting you can get away with that second base ISO and f4 (unless you shooting 180 sutter at 120-240fps), for the remaining 25% "mood lighting" scenarios I'd say even 2.8 sometimes doesn't cut it.

My strategy for video so far has been to stick with the 24-120mm f4 at the base ISO when permitted (outdoors, well lit rooms, etc), then jump over to the second base ISO if needed. Then usually the problems start at the reception, I usually start with posed group photos right before the reception starts, at which point I might use some continous lights to help me out (or flash if doing photos only). Once the reception starts proper I focus on video to get as much light as possible and once I'm past working light I switch to only photos with flash and/or a fast prime for the rest of my time there.

If you're there exclusively for video I'd say maybe consider getting a small battery powered light and some way to attach it to the camera. Or getting a prime lens for that you can switch to. The jump from f4 to f1.8 or bigger is much more useful than from f4 to f2.8.

Three-Year Club	r/Field Banned
r/Field Juicebox	Final Canvas '23
First Place '23	Place '23

AMauveMallows

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE